Impact of post-COVID-19 condition on health status and activities of daily living: the PRIME post-COVID study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess health and activities of daily living (ADL) in SARS-CoV-2-positive adults with and without post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) and compare this with negative tested individuals. Furthermore, different PCC case definitions were compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals. METHODS: All adults tested PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the Public Health Service South Limburg (Netherlands) between June 2020 and November 2021 (n=41 780) and matched PCR negative individuals (2:1, on age, sex, year-quarter test, municipality; n=19 875) were invited by email. Health (five-level EuroQol five-dimension (EQ5D) index and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQVAS)) and ADL impairment were assessed. PCC classification was done using the WHO case definition and five other common definitions. RESULTS: In total, 8409 individuals (6381 SARS-CoV-2 positive; 53±15 years; 57% female; 9 (7-11) months since test) were included. 39.4% of positives had PCC by the WHO case definition (EQVAS: 71±20; EQ5D index: 0.800±0.191; ADL impairment: 30 (10-70)%) and perceived worse health and more ADL impairment than negatives, that is, difference of -8.50 points (95% CI -9.71 to -7.29; p<0.001) for EQVAS, which decreased by 1.49 points (95% CI 0.86 to 2.12; p<0.001) in individuals with PCC for each comorbidity present, and differences of -0.065 points (95% CI -0.074 to -0.056; p<0.001) for EQ5D index, and +16.72% (95% CI 15.01 to 18.43; p<0.001) for ADL impairment. Health and ADL impairment were similar in negatives and positives without PCC. Replacing the WHO case definition with other PCC definitions yielded comparable results. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with PCC have substantially worse health and more ADL impairment than negative controls, irrespective of the case definition. Authorities should inform the public about the associated burden of PCC and enable adequate support.

The role of social network structure and function in moderate and severe social and emotional loneliness: The Dutch SaNAE study in older adults.

Background: Loneliness is a serious public health problem. This became even more visible during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the key social network aspects contributing to loneliness remain unknown. Here, we evaluated social network structure and function and associations with (moderate/severe) social and emotional loneliness in older adults. Methods: This cross-sectional study includes online questionnaire data (SaNAE cohort, August-November 2020), in independently living Dutch adults aged 40 years and older. For the separate outcomes of social and emotional loneliness, associations with structural social network aspects (e.g., network diversity - having various types of relationships, and density - network members who know each other), and functional social network aspects (informational, emotional, and practical social support) were assessed and risk estimates were adjusted for age, educational level, level or urbanization, comorbidities, and network size. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were stratified by sex. Results: Of 3396 participants (55 % men; mean age 65 years), 18 % were socially lonely which was associated with a less diverse and less dense network, living alone, feeling less connected to friends, not having a club membership, and fewer emotional supporters (men only) or informational supporters (women only). 28 % were emotionally lonely, which was associated with being socially lonely, and more exclusively online (versus in-person) contacts (men only), and fewer emotional supporters (women only). Conclusion: Network structure and function beyond the mere number of contacts is key in loneliness. Public health strategies to prevent loneliness in older adults should be sex-tailored and promote network diversity and density, club membership, informational and emotional support, and in-person contact.

The association between SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and cross-border mobility for visiting family or friends among Dutch residents of a Euregional province.

BACKGROUND: Border measures were implemented in many countries as infection prevention measures to interrupt between-country COVID-19 transmission. Border closings impact border region residents, as their professional and social lives are often intertwined across national borders. We studied whether crossing borders to visit family/friends in neighbouring countries (cross-border mobility) was associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Dutch Euregional residents. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 serostatus (negative/positive) was assessed (pre-vaccination) using laboratory testing to determine previous infection. Visiting Belgian or German family/friends in February-March 2020 was questioned. The association between cross-border mobility and seroprevalence was tested using logistic regression analysis, adjusted for previously identified exposure factors. RESULTS: In 9,996 participants, 36.8 % (n = 3,677) reported cross-border family/friends. Of these, one-third (n = 1,306) visited their cross-border family/friends in February-March 2020. Multivariable analyses revealed no positive association between cross-border mobility and seropositivity, for both participants living in a border municipality (ORfamily/friends not visited=0.90 [95 % CI:0.78-1.04], ORfamily/friends visited=0.88 [95 % CI:0.73-1.05]), and for participants not living in a border municipality (ORfamily/friends not visited=0.91 [95 % CI:0.72-1.16], ORfamily/friends visited=0.62 [95 % CI:0.41-0.94]). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided no evidence of cross-border mobility as an important exposure factor for SARS-CoV-2. The results of our unique real-world study suggest that cross-border mobility did not substantially contribute to cross-border SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the Netherlands.

Cross-border mobility in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: impact of COVID-19 border restrictions on everyday activities and visiting social network members.

Introduction: Cross-border mobility (CBM) to visit social network members or for everyday activities is an important part of daily life for citizens in border regions, including the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (EMR: neighboring regions from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany). We assessed changes in CBM during the COVID-19 pandemic and how participants experienced border restrictions. Methods: Impact of COVID-19 on the EMR' is a longitudinal study using comparative cross-border data collection. In 2021, a random sample of the EMR-population was invited for participation in online surveys to assess current and pre-pandemic CBM. Changes in CBM, experience of border restrictions, and associated factors were analyzed using multinomial and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: Pre-pandemic, 82% of all 3,543 participants reported any CBM: 31% for social contacts and 79% for everyday activities. Among these, 26% decreased social CBM and 35% decreased CBM for everyday activities by autumn 2021. Negative experience of border restrictions was reported by 45% of participants with pre-pandemic CBM, and was higher (p < 0.05) in Dutch participants (compared to Belgian; aOR= 1.4), cross-border [work] commuters (aOR= 2.2), participants with cross-border social networks of friends, family or acquaintances (aOR= 1.3), and those finding the measures 'limit group size' (aOR= 1.5) and 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 2.0) difficult to adhere to and finding 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 1.6) useless. Discussion: CBM for social contacts and everyday activities was substantial in EMR-citizens, but decreased during the pandemic. Border restrictions were valued as negative by a considerable portion of EMR-citizens, especially when having family or friends across the border. When designing future pandemic control strategies, policy makers should account for the negative impact of CBM restrictions on their citizens.

High proportions of post-exertional malaise and orthostatic intolerance in people living with post-COVID-19 condition: the PRIME post-COVID study.

Background: Exercise-based treatments can worsen/exacerbate symptoms in people who were SARS-CoV-2 positive and living with post-COVID-19 condition (PL-PCC) and who have post-exertional malaise (PEM) or orthostatic intolerance (OI). Nevertheless, PEM and OI are not routinely assessed by clinicians. We estimated PEM and OI proportions in PL-PCC, as well as in people not living with PCC (PnL-PCC) and negatives (i.e., never reported a SARS-CoV-2 positive test), and identified associated factors. Methods: Participants from the Prevalence, Risk factors, and Impact Evaluation (PRIME) post-COVID-19 condition study were included. PEM and OI were assessed using validated questionnaires. PCC was defined as feeling unrecovered after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multivariable regression analyses to study PEM and OI were stratified for sex. Results: Data from 3,783 participants were analyzed. In PL-PCC, the proportion of PEM was 48.1% and 41.2%, and the proportion of OI was 29.3% and 27.9% in women and men, respectively. Proportions were higher in PL-PCC than negatives, for PEM in women OR=4.38 [95%CI:3.01-6.38]; in men OR = 4.78 [95%CI:3.13-7.29]; for OI in women 3.06 [95%CI:1.97-4.76]; in men 2.71 [95%CI:1.75-4.21]. Associated factors were age ≤ 60 years, ≥1 comorbidities, and living alone. Conclusion: High proportions of PEM and OI are observed in PL-PCC. Standard screening for PEM and OI is recommended in PL-PCC to promote appropriate therapies.